My eldest son is not a Christian, so you can't blame him for not wanting to learn to be a better Christian in our primary school's main stream of scripture.

He is not a Buddhist, so you can't blame him for not wanting to learn to be a better Buddhist in the alternative scripture stream our school offers.

So he sits out scripture. But this means he misses out on a lot.

He misses out on a broad education in ethics -- which should be provided to all kids, not just those without a religion.

it also means he misses out on learning about the great religions of the world -- which, again, should be provided to all kids, regardless of their own religion or lack thereof.

Instead of scripture classes focused on furthering a particular religion, all NSW students should attend regular classes devoted to discussing issues of ethics, creation, etc etc, spanning all the great religions and non-religious philosophies.

Is this public school or something? I am in America. So we don't exactly do that sort of thing on a normal basis. Does your public school actually teach bible scripture?

Yes, in government schools in the state of NSW in Australia, volunteers offer scripture classes. Usually they are parents teaching their own religion to students in their child's school.

Our eldest son doesn't attend the majority Christian scripture class or the minority Buddhist scripture class offered at his school, so he spends that time each week in the library.

The St James Ethics Centre petition called on the state to offer an alternative secular ethics course in that time slot, for students not taking a scripture class. This would be a step forward so I signed it.

However, my preference would that all students, regardless or their religion or lack thereof, be taught about the history and beliefs of all major religions and non-religious philosophies in that time slot. In my view, scripture should be an after-hours activity.

Stephen,

The present system exists because in the dim past the Colony of New South Wales decided to start its own system of schooling, one of the trade-offs to various religions which agreed to close their own primary schools was that at least an hour a week would be set aside so that they could give religious instruction to children of their religion who happened to be enrolled in Government schools. The Catholics decided to keep and expand their own system of schooling. Thus we have the older religious schools and the newer State system.

Religious instruction in Government schools is by way of being a contract enforceable by law and enshrined in various pieces of legislation.

May I suggest that you give your son a list of books he can read to get the results you desire, thus his library time will not be wasted.

Well, yes it's law, and yes there's a historical reason for the law's existence, but as I would with all bad laws, I'd argue that this law can and should be changed.

Where in the law does it say that children who opt out have to spend the time doing nothing?

It doesn't say they must do nothing -- it just says they can't be instructed in academic topics which might advantage them over students who miss out on that extra tuition because they spend that time studying scripture.

I haven't read the law but I know this from my experience as a parent. Also, the St James Ethics Centre has written about this here: http://ethics.org.au/content/ethics-bas ... -scripture

(That's the original petition that inspired me to start this forum thread.)

But the current system does not just mean that non-participating students like my eldest miss out on a richer education in comparative religion and ethics -- it means that all students, including those who take scripture, miss out.

Children should learn about religion at school. They should learn their religion at home or in their place of worship.

Stephen,

You are assuming that your son is missing out on a lot, but is he?
Is there any evidence that either the Christian or the Buddist classes that you mention are offering anything positive? He may well be better off in the library.

from the preamble to the petition.


Let us examine this, there seems to be a presupposition that children attending scripture classes are gaining something and that those not attending are somehow at a disadvantage, but if they are at a disadvantage then it is the parents choice. If parents choose to knowingly disadvantage their children then their wishes ought to be respected, albeit condemned. Attendance at Scripture classes is not compulsory even if one's particular religion is represented. According to St James (ethics not apostle) only some 25% of students do not attend Scripture classes, this may represent more or less than 25% but it is a minority.

Further to the idea that children who have religious instruction are advantaged what should we do to counter-balance the further advantage that is being gained by children who attend Sunday schools? Perhaps we could have an ethics based class each Sunday morn in State schools for those who are missing out.

Change religion to value or ethics and I agree more or less with your conclusion. Children, indeed everyone, should learn the meaning and influence of values/ethics during their formal education and adopt their own values/ethics from life, of which home is the major contributer for most children.

On tonight's TV News there is to be a trial of an ethics based addition to the NSW curriculum based on the proposals of the St James Ethics Centre.

So congratulations are in order.

I don't think debate about this topic should be focussed on the merits or otherwise of either scripture or an ethics class alternative. In this case it seems to me the principle issue is that the objectors to the trial seek to limit the freedom of others.

I believe that that the simple question objector's must answer is this - What interest do parents who choose to send their children to scripture classes have in determining what other people's children are doing in this time?

I am not aware of any satisfactory answer to this.

Certainly, there is no sensible objection to the trial. The ethics classes are a step forward for those students who don't take scripture, and those who think the classes somehow diminish scripture are, frankly, off their tree. (I'm not being polite, but honestly -- where do they find these nutters?)

Regarding any reservations I've expressed about the trial, well I'm just being greedy. I'm looking towards an imaginary future world in which all students have the chance to discuss many religious and non-religious points of view in a shared learning environment. It's not on the cards I know, but I think all students -- of any religion or none -- would benefit from understanding the history and core beliefs of the great religions of the world, in addition to receiving an education in ethics that recognises but is not limited to religion. (I'm an atheist and I'm glad I know a little about the history and core beliefs of most religions.)

But kudos for getting the trial up. It's huge step forward from our eldest spending time in the library while others study scripture. In these classes, I hope he learns to think deeply about the ethical challenges that face us all.

What do you propose to have taught at these ethics classes?
Like most people I start deliberation on the subject based on my own experience.
My grandparents were strict Prespetarian, and Anglican Christians, their children dumped their religion but became good living ethical people. I became a Catholic and brought my children up in the religion. They in turn dumped their religion but became good living ethical people.
I teach the Catholic faith to government school children, often only so their parents can get them into a Catholic high school.
In the classes we teach them they were created by a loving God who loves them and wants them to be good because he is good. There is no mention of hell these days, mores the pity I say sometimes!
Kids learn from example more than anything that is said to them. To have someone in class waffling on about half a dozen different religions without any heart or passion won't make any impact at all.
My question is this. What is taught in ethics classes for young children aged 7-12 years? And how do you give the message any oomph without mentioning a greater power?

I certainly wouldn't want to teach waffle! I'd want to teach ethics and the history of belief.

For example, the history of the Protestant Reformation contains real drama, with hard learnings (not waffle) for us all -- Catholic, Protestant, atheist and other alike. (I'm still surprised by how many Australians Catholic don't realise that their personal beliefs about their relationship with clergy and God are closer to Protestant teaching than to Catholic. Perhaps because they didn't study comparative religion?)

I'm not a natural teacher, but if I was I can imagine teaching that class with heart and passion like you say, just as great teachers bring those traits to all they do.

Hi. I think its hilarious that the NSW Government has sanctioned the trial of an ethics course!
I'm with Christine O, whose "ethics" are you going to teach?
Is there any sample material currently available for parents to look at?
I would have thought that the history of the Reformation would be covered by the NSW curriculum already.
I would have also thought that an "ethics" course would properly fall under the umbrella of "Philosophy for Children" or P4C as its known. There has been much work already done in this area for curriculum materials. What makes the St John material so special?
What training will the people who teach the courses have?
Finally, will children still have the option of not attending the St John's "ethics" course as well as not attending scripture?

"I'm with Christine O, whose "ethics" are you going to teach?"

I presume it would be comparative ethics, within the broad range of views that are compatible with Australian democracy.

"Is there any sample material currently available for parents to look at?"

No idea. But knowing that would help us answer the question "should we change the curriculum for this course?", not "should this course exist?"

"I would have thought that the history of the Reformation would be covered by the NSW curriculum already."

I don't know for sure, but I don't get the sense that the history of religion or comparative religion or ethics is on the agenda at all. Certainly no study material of that sort has come home so far.

"I would have also thought that an "ethics" course would properly fall under the umbrella of "Philosophy for Children" or P4C as its known. There has been much work already done in this area for curriculum materials. What makes the St John material so special?"

On the face of it, P4C sounds interesting, but I don't think it's taught in government schools. I'm not wedded to any particular set of instructional materials -- just the idea that students learn about ethics and all major religions.

"What training will the people who teach the courses have?"

Perhaps as little as the volunteer scripture teachers. Perhaps as much as the qualified teachers. Either way, knowing that would help us answer the question "who should teach this?" not "should we offer it?"

"Finally, will children still have the option of not attending the St John's "ethics" course as well as not attending scripture?"

Yes.

The ethics in most major religions is easily derived from what are essentially human values. The Golden Rule - Treat others as you would like to be treated, has evolutionary roots that has helped civil societies rise to greatness throughout the ages. Christians often think that without God whats to stop people just killing each other? and the fact is, thats a lie. I'm not saying we don't need laws etc, I am just saying that ethics can be derived from sensible behaviour in our society, regardless of religion.

I don't understand the focus on ethics. Surely religion is also about metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, teleology. Why is the proposal just about ethics and not P4C generally?
Philip Cam, world renown for P4C, has been engaged to write the material. We might get an idea of the content from his "Thinking Stories" series.